Superliner Catenary question

Double stacks run under wire in some SEPTA territory as well. Norristown sees it frequently.

Right. The NEC pinch points are:
-broadly where the Kearny Connection diverges all the way to Sunnyside Yard, including the Empire Connection tunnels and Penn Station itself
-the B&P Tunnels
-PHL station with one possible track exception as discussed above, but the wire is too low for comfort
-BOS station and approaches

I’m unaware of any other pinch points.

entire New Haven line would not be able to accommodate them.
and again for Super liners you need low level platforms .

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:46 pm entire New Haven line would not be able to accommodate them.
and again for Super liners you need low level platforms .

What’s the issue with the New Haven - overhead, third rail, something else? I’m aware the platforms are the wrong height but am also wondering whether a non-revenue move from NHV to the LIRR Bay Ridge is possible for whatever reason. Was under the impression that Superliners cleared AAR Plate F, and that PWRR had clearance for such cars all the way from Providence to LIRR.

catenary height max rail car height is 14 foot 8 inch due to old old overpasses .
even some freight engines will not clear unless fans are lowered and horns moved.

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:48 am Double stacks and tri-level autocarriers run under catenary in Rhode Island.

Didn't they undercut one of the tracks to reach the necessary clearance for the autoracks?

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:36 am Right. The NEC pinch points are:
-broadly where the Kearny Connection diverges all the way to Sunnyside Yard, including the Empire Connection tunnels and Penn Station itself
-the B&P Tunnels
-PHL station with one possible track exception as discussed above, but the wire is too low for comfort
-BOS station and approaches

I’m unaware of any other pinch points.

One more spot to add was under the CSXT (B&O) bridge at Cheverly, Maryland. While a Superliner will clear the wire the gap is too small to leave the catenary energized. The Superliner test train, which I wrote about several years ago, never made t all the way through the B&P tunnel (even on the No.89 switch aka: the Gauntlet) due to the sharp curve at Pennsylvania Avenue. I assume they would fit through the Union tunnels just north of Baltimore station but as I said the train never got that far. The whole idea behind the test was to see if a detour route for Capital Limited was available via the "Port Road" line should CSXT pile them up on Sand Patch as they some times do.

By the way, the gauntlet track in the B&P tunnel (No.89 switch) has been removed account both CSXT and NS told Amtrak they had no plans to run high-wide cars through the tunnel. Since neither company would agree to pay for it's maintenance Amtrak removed it.

this thread reminds me of something I've wondered for years, after reading an article or post or something about how the catenary is handled at some swinging bridge north of NYC. (It is the one where the height of the cat. wildly changes in a sort distance)
Does the cab of: AEM-7, HHP-7, ACS-64 have a gauge that indicates the height of the pantograph?

So it might be worth backing up and asking why we are concerned about fitting Superliners under wire. If its for regular service to NYC, that's a very expensive proposition that isn't in Amtrak's wildest dreams. If it's a special move or charters, that's a reasonable question.

It's been an interesting discussion but we're starting to go in circles.

Using Superliners on the NEC seems an obsession for some people. Let's face it, it's never going to happen. Too many clearance problems, lack of low level platforms. Time to move on.

CHTT1 wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 11:00 am Using Superliners on the NEC seems an obsession for some people. Let's face it, it's never going to happen. Too many clearance problems, lack of low level platforms. Time to move on.

Pretty much this. Not to mention they're old, and there's no point to it anyway.

It’s worth suggesting that Amtrak spec an NEC-size bilevel coach for its next LD order. Bombardier and CRRC aren’t the only manufacturers capable of such - Alstom’s TGV Duplex coach would fit the NEC quite well for instance. Presto, no further issues with catenary or tunnels, and despite needing a luggage compartment for larger rolling bags (no room for overhead racks upstairs) it would have nearly as many seats as a Superliner coach. Such should have platform lifts on their interior stairs, and if possible, downstairs low-platform center doors as well as high-platform vestibule doors.

Sleepers are another matter and until someone comes up with a practical design, we’ve wasted enough electrons on them here

NJT uses such, and MNRR is considering them. It's going to be a necessity due to capacity constraints as demand for seats, and slots, grows. The issue, I think, is will people want to use them for longer distances.

keep in mind a bombardier MLV is much lower than a super liner, they have nothing in common .
height of Super liner is 16 ft 2 in (4.93 m)
height of MLV is 14 ft 6 in same height as a Genesis locomotive.

DutchRailnut wrote: ↑Thu Jan 30, 2020 2:50 pm keep in mind a bombardier MLV is much lower than a super liner, they have nothing in common .
height of Super liner is 16 ft 2 in (4.93 m)
height of MLV is 14 ft 6 in same height as a Genesis locomotive.

Yep, I’m aware and I’ve ridden on board both types of cars, as well as the Superliner-height gallery and BBD Bilevel cars among others. As a passenger, I prefer the ride quality and ease of boarding of the gallery and Bilevel designs, though for scenery the Superliner Sightseer is unmatched and the seats aboard commuter equipment aren’t nearly as comfortable as those in the average Superliner coach. The Bombardier MLV isn’t my favorite; it feels top-heavy and has a pronounced sway not present in single-level cars, but the Superliner feels very similar.

As for whether people want to use them for long distances, it’s not up to them - it’s up to what Amtrak decides to put in the consist. Passengers on board will probably gripe about everything from stairs to luggage, but after they get off the train they'll tell their friends how much they love LD train travel (except for the delays) and how glad they are that Amtrak finally got new cars.

The point about the Capitol Limited reroute is a good one though. I know Amtrak isn’t keen to change from the current CSX route WAS-PGH permanently, but short of converting the Cap to single level (which would allow a through Broadway Limited section again, but that’s for another thread), it would be good to have a feasible backup route or potential feeder service capable of western-height bilevels.